From Dave Ananth
The silence of the Attorney-Generals Chambers (AGC) has become a glaring issue for those who, like me, observe legal and judicial developments.
Once known for engaging with the public and addressing crucial matters of public interest, the AGC appears to have retreated into an era of silence that raises more questions than it answers. This lack of transparency and engagement is particularly striking in the context of high-profile cases and allegations that dominate headlines and public discourse.
During Tommy Thomass tenure as attorney-general (AG), the AGCs approach was notably different. Press conferences followed major cases, offering explanations and clarifications that served to inform and engage the public.
Whether one agreed with his views or not, Thomas readiness to communicate showed a commitment to addressing public concerns and reinforcing the principles of accountability and transparency.
His efforts ensured that matters of significant public interestissues affecting Malaysia nationally and internationallywere not left to speculation and misinformation. He provided a framework for understanding the AGCs decisions, thereby strengthening public confidence in the rule of law. Some of his decisions were circumspect, but thats ok, no man is perfect. He explained.
Contrast this with the current state of affairs. Since the departure of Thomas, the AGC under successive AGs, including Idrus Harun, Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh, and now the just appointed Dusuki Mokhtar, has adopted a silent approach.
Public engagement has dwindled to the point of non-existence, leaving a vacuum where clarity and accountability should prevail. This silence has become particularly troubling in the wake of high-profile cases such as the 1MDB scandal and the ongoing legal battles involving Najib Razaks addendum issue.
These are not mere legal proceedings; they are matters of public interest that shape Malaysias reputation domestically and internationally.
The AGCs silence allows misinformation and unfounded allegations to thrive. In an era dominated by social media and rapid dissemination of information, the absence of an official narrative leaves the field wide open for speculation and bias.
This not only undermines public trust in the AGC but also compromises the perception of Malaysias legal system, which in my view, is excellent and above many other countries.
Hence, it is not enough for the chambers to carry out their duties in silence, as the principles of transparency and accountability demand more than just quiet diligence.
The public has a right to know the rationale behind decisions that affect them and the nation at large. Fat istitia ruat clum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning Let justice be done though the heavens fall. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realised regardless of consequences.
Consider examples from other jurisdictions. In countries like the US, the UK and some others, AGs engage with the public, especially on matters of significant public interest. They issue statements, hold press conferences and clarify the legal basis for their actions.
In the US, for instance, the Department of Justice often issues detailed statements about ongoing cases or investigations, ensuring that the public remains informed. This openness not only informs the public but also reinforces the credibility of these institutions. Again, this is not for every matter but only in cases of huge public interest.
In Malaysia, however, the AGC seems to have taken a different path. The chambers reticence to engage with the media and the public has created a one-sided narrative dominated by uninformed opinions and biased reporting.
This silence does a disservice not only to the AGC but also to the broader legal and judicial framework of the country. Public interest must override private discretion in matters that affect the nations integrity and reputation. Judges cannot talk except through their judgments. From what I read, most people dont read judgments, they rely on social media and make baseless comments. Most get it completely wrong.
One might argue that the AGCs silence is a strategy to avoid controversy or political interference. The office may argue that it is up to the minister in charge to issue statements.
However, this approach, in my view, is fundamentally flawed. I think, as the governments lawyers, they are the best to counter misinformation, not politicians. Silence does not shield the AGC from controversy; it only amplifies it.
When the public is left in the dark, they are more likely to believe unverified claims and conspiracy theories. The role of the AGC is not merely to prosecute cases but also to uphold the rule of law and foster public trust in the legal system. This cannot, with respect, be achieved in silence.
The current AG, Dusuki, has an opportunity to change this narrative. By adopting a more transparent and communicative approach, he can build public confidence in the AGC and the legal system as a whole.
This would involve not only addressing the media but also issuing statements on matters of public interest, explaining the legal reasoning behind key decisions, and countering misinformation with facts. Such measures would go a long way in restoring the AGCs credibility and reinforcing the principles of accountability and transparency.
The silence of the AGC also has broader implications for Malaysias international reputation. The 1MDB scandal, for example, is not just a domestic issue; it has garnered global attention and scrutiny. The lack of clear communication from the AGC on such high-profile cases leaves Malaysia vulnerable to criticism and scepticism from the international community.
A proactive approach to public engagement would not only address domestic concerns but also demonstrate to the world that Malaysia is committed to upholding the rule of law and addressing corruption with transparency and integrity.
I have a lot of respect for the chambers and the judiciary in Malaysia. It is time for the AGC to break its silence and reclaim its role as a guardian of justice in Malaysia.
Dave Ananth is a former Malaysian magistrate and lawyer. He is now Special Counsel based in New Zealand.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.